John Hutton: In our work on the new White Paper, we are closely considering the issue that my hon. Friend raises. In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), I said that enterprise is not only an economic issue, although it is a powerful economic issue, but an important social tool that helps us reach into areas of disadvantage throughout the country. I am sure that a reinvigorated enterprise strategy can help areas in Britain that are under-represented in business start-ups to do better, and especially groups of people—for example, women—among whom the number of business start-ups is much lower than among other groups.
	We are examining a range of measures—I shall not announce the detail of the White Paper today—but I assure my hon. Friend that we acknowledge her points and are tackling them directly in our work on the White Paper.

Energy Supply

Patrick McFadden: No, we do not. There is no easy way to undertake the process. The consultation schedule was set out last July, and the hon. Gentleman would have been informed about it. The overall process takes significantly longer than six weeks, as prior consultation is held with the relevant sub-postmasters. Post Office Ltd. does its best to take all relevant factors into account in what is a difficult, and often locally unpopular, process.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, although I ask her also to give us the business in Westminster Hall.
	This week, the whole country has been appalled by the news that one of Garry Newlove's murderers has been released on bail. I suggest youth crime as the subject for next week's topical debate.
	The Prime Minister has told  The Sun that he wants to change the law on organ donations so that consent is assumed, even though his organ donation taskforce has yet to report and he voted against a measure to change the law four years ago. Will he or the Health Secretary come to the House to make a statement on exactly what is Government policy?
	Yesterday, the Government finally published the Senior Salaries Review Body report. They have sat on the report since July and spun it to the media for the past month, and they gave it to Members only late yesterday afternoon. Will the Leader of the House ensure that that absurd situation never reoccurs?
	One way in which Ministers show disrespect for the House is in their failure to answer written questions properly. Departments are refusing to answer any questions about data security, including factual questions about the past. Instead, they hide behind the ongoing Cabinet Office review. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Justice have answered questions about past data security. If they can answer the questions, why cannot the other Government Departments do so? Will the Leader of the House remind her ministerial colleagues of the importance of written questions? Every week she tells us that she puts Parliament first; every week her colleagues treat Parliament with disdain.
	In November the Chancellor announced that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs had lost the personal data of 25 million people. It has now been reported that at least 20 more data security breaches have been discovered—that is two incidents each week since the Government said that they would sort it out. May we have a debate on the Government's chronic mismanagement of people's data?
	Yesterday the Prime Minister evaded specific questions about the cost of the Northern Rock crisis to the taxpayer. Given the supposed commitment of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House to put Parliament first, and given how serious the crisis is, when will the Chancellor make a statement on how much that is costing the British taxpayer?
	Finally, I understand that Tony Blair has written to the Prime Minister with a progress report on the Prime Minister's first six months. In the interests of transparency, would the right hon. and learned Lady place a copy of the letter in the Library?
	Talking of Tony Blair, it has been reported that President Sarkozy supports the nomination of Mr. Blair for the EU presidency. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary supports Mr. Blair's nomination, but may we have a statement from the Prime Minister on whether Mr. Blair is his preferred candidate? In six months, the Prime Minister has abandoned the national interest, ignored the British people and left us on the sidelines in Europe. Having waited so long for the top job, is the Prime Minister going to find that, yet again, he is dancing to Tony Blair's tune?

Simon Hughes: I join the expressions of condolence to the Newlove family. On a basis of consensus, I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and support the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I suggest that we have an early debate, without any motion for substantive decision, on how bail applies to those charged with murder, rape and the other most serious offences—particularly in respect of under-18s or juveniles. Such a debate would be timely and the country would appreciate it.
	On the business that the Leader of the House has announced for the next fortnight, I should say that obviously we are about to begin the long march towards the implementation of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, and that is welcome. On Monday week we are to debate a procedure motion. Will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that the Government manage that, so that people know in good time when we will debate each substantive part of the Bill? There are environmental issues, constitutional issues and issues to do with home affairs and justice. In that way, people—not only us here, but those outside who have an interest—can see what is coming in good time, inform us and participate in the process.
	As one who has always supported the presumption that organs should be given, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement on that and suggest that we now seek to do something about deciding the matter again here; I realise that legislation is required. I suggest that we have an initial debate, to test the mood of the House and pick up the issues, and go on to implement, or discuss implementing, the change. That would be welcome and I hope that it could be done relatively easily and speedily.
	I have two last things. A local government announcement is about to be implemented by a decision on the settlement for the coming year. Before that, may we have a debate on whether local councils will have the resources to implement equal pay for women and men who are local government staff?
	On Members' pay, I welcome the Leader of the House's motions on the Order Paper in relation to an independent mechanism for determining pay. Can she give an assurance to colleagues that this is not an excuse for putting stuff into the long grass but that we will have decisions not only about the mechanism but about the conclusions by the summer of this year?

David Howarth: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on early-day motion 690, on the collapse of the trial against Derek Pasquill?
	That this House notes the collapse of the case against Derek Pasquill; believes that the law about official secrets should be based on preventing damage to the public interest rather than preventing embarrassment for the leading party; and calls for an enquiry into the case of Derek Pasquill and for a review of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
	In particular, will she make time for a debate on the proposal for an inquiry into how the Foreign Office pursued Mr. Pasquill under the Official Secrets Act 1989, while all along holding documents that exonerated him? Does that not show the need for a thoroughgoing review of the official secrets legislation?

Harriet Harman: With regard to any individual case under the Official Secrets Act, the question of whether a prosecution should be brought is initially for the Attorney-General to determine in the public interest. Thereafter, the prosecution is conducted independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. Whether to proceed with the prosecution is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service or the court to decide— [ Interruption. ] As for whether there should be a debate in the House on the case that the hon. Gentleman raised, I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office still has to consider whether disciplinary proceedings are necessary. It would therefore not be appropriate to discuss it in the House now.

Harriet Harman: The Minister for the South West is my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). We are developing the role of the regional Ministers— [ Laughter. ] Regional Ministers are a new innovation. I think that they are doing a very good on behalf of their regions and that we can build on that role. What we need to do next—we are looking at this in the Modernisation Committee—is to consider how to develop a system for regional accountability to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contribute to that inquiry.

David Miliband: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the Russian Government's actions against the British Council in Russia. The House will recall that in October 2007 the Russian Government threatened to close the British Council's operations outside Moscow from 1 January 2008. That was confirmed on 12 December and again last week with the threat of a series of administrative measures against the British Council, including tax measures in St Petersburg and visa restrictions against British Council staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. The Russians also threatened to take measures against the British Council in Moscow, up to and including the removal of accreditation of British Council staff working in Russia.
	On Tuesday this week, the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser held what we believed were productive talks in Moscow about a range of international and bilateral issues, including the British Council. Yet on the same day, the Russian Government exerted further pressure on the British Council. The Russian security services summoned more than 20 locally engaged members of British Council staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg one by one for interviews. Ten members of staff were interviewed late at night in their homes after calls by the Russian tax police. Questioning ranged from the institutional status of the British Council to personal questions about the health and welfare of family pets. These Russian citizens have chosen to offer their skills and hard work to promote cultural contact between the people of Russia and the UK. As a result, they have been the subject of blatant intimidation from their own Government.
	I think that the whole House will agree that such actions are reprehensible, not worthy of a great country and contrary to the letter and spirit of the legal framework under which the British Council operates—notably international law, including the Vienna conventions and the UK-Russia 1994 bilateral agreement on cultural co-operation, which Russia has ratified.
	Russia has failed to show any legal reasons under Russian or international law why the British Council should not continue to operate. It has also failed to substantiate its claims that the British Council is avoiding paying tax. The British Council is in fact registered for tax in Russia and has complied with all requests of the tax authorities in respect of its activities. Instead of taking legal action against the British Council, the Russian Government have resorted to intimidation of its staff. I am confident that the whole House will share the anger and dismay felt by this Government at the actions of the Russian Government. We saw similar actions during the cold war but thought, frankly, they had been put behind us.
	The British Council's first priority is, rightly, the safety of its own staff, yet the actions of the Russian Government have made it impossible for staff to go about their work in a normal way. British Council offices in Yekaterinburg and St Petersburg have been prevented from operating, so the British Council has, with great regret, taken the decision to suspend its operations in those two cities. The council is making an announcement to this effect as I speak. The staff concerned will continue to be supported while the council considers its next steps.
	There has already been strong international condemnation of Russia's actions. Following my conversation last night with the Slovenian Foreign Minister in his capacity as presidency of the EU, an EU presidency statement has just been issued on behalf of all European Governments. The statement makes it clear that the EU is
	"very concerned at Russia's demand to close British Council regional offices"
	and
	"deeply regrets the harassment of British Council staff"
	and other measures taken. It calls on Russia to
	"allow the British Council to operate freely and effectively in Russia".
	The Government of the United States have issued a statement of support, calling for the British Council to be able to continue its good work in Russia, and the Canadian Government are also expressing their concerns in Moscow about these developments. I am grateful for the many expressions of support that the British Council has received from Russians who have benefited from working with it.
	The Russian Foreign Minister stated publicly on 14 December what the Russian Government had been saying to us in private—that its attacks on the British Council were linked to the Litvinenko affair. I announced to the House on 16 July a list of measures that the Government had decided to adopt in response to Russia's failure to co-operate with our efforts to secure justice for Alexander Litvinenko. These included introducing visa restrictions for Russian officials travelling to the UK and suspending our visa consultations. The House can rest assured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those measures will continue to be administered rigorously.
	We regard as entirely separate the issues surrounding Mr. Litvinenko's murder and the activities of the British Council to build links between British and Russian schools and universities, to support English language teaching in Russia and Russian studies in the UK and to promote the best of British drama, writing, music and art. Nor do we believe that cultural activities should become a political football. In fact, educational and cultural activities are important ways of bringing people together. That is why I have decided not to take similar action against Russia's cultural activities in the UK—for example, by sending back Russian masterpieces scheduled for show at the Royal Academy or by taking measures against the two Russian diplomats at the Russian embassy who are dedicated to cultural work. We have nothing to fear from these contacts; we welcome and encourage them.
	The immediate cost to the Russian people of the Russian Government's actions is their lack of access to the benefits of British Council activity. The longer-term cost is their country's standing in the world as a responsible international player. The British Council will continue its work in Moscow, meeting the demand from as many as possible of the 1.25 million Russian citizens who used the council's services last year.
	The British Council's experience in Russia is not repeated in any of the more than 100 British Council operations elsewhere in the world. Russia's actions therefore raise serious questions about her observance of international law, as well as about the standards of behaviour she is prepared to adopt towards her own citizens. That can only make the international community more cautious in its dealings with Russia in international negotiations and more doubtful about its existing international commitments.
	Russia remains an important international player in addressing key global issues and challenges, including climate change and energy security, as well as others such as Iran and Kosovo, but I hope the whole House will agree with me that Russia's actions against the British Council are a stain on Russia's reputation and standing that will have been noted by countries all around the world. I will continue to keep the House informed of developments.

David Miliband: I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary's strong support for the Government's actions. He said at the outset that he believed the Russian actions were counter-productive, and at the end of his remarks emphasised the wide areas in which we can co-operate with the Russian authorities. He is absolutely right about the counter-productive nature of the actions that have been taken. The only losers are Russian citizens, and the reputation of the Russian Government. It is important to stress that there has not been a contagion from our disagreement about the British Council to areas of common concern in respect of Iran and Kosovo—although, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, we do not hold the same position on Kosovo as the Russian authorities.
	There was only one item in the right hon. Gentleman's observations in respect of which there may be some room for confusion. I believe that the 500,000 Russians to whom he referred are those who use the offices outside Moscow. The 1.25 million figure that I gave related to Russian citizens using all the British Council offices, including those in Moscow.
	Let me run through some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions. I referred to the 20 members of British Council staff outside Moscow as the number called in for questioning. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the number of British Council staff who operate in the Moscow office. No documents have been taken, to our knowledge. As for the legality of the British Council's operations, yes, the UK-Russia agreement of 1994 remains in force. The UK Government have been keen for some years to update it and move it forward, but we have not encountered a willing response from the Russian authorities. That is the bilateral basis, but there is also the international basis. The Vienna conventions, for instance, provide an important basis in international law.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about other countries. As the Russian Government have never made clear to us what is illegal or improper about the British Council's activities outside Moscow, it is very hard to draw a comparison with the activities of other Governments, although I think the European Union's statement and the alacrity and keenness of Governments to sign it show that there is widespread concern around Europe that this constitutes a threat to all Europe's cultural institutions. EUNIC, the body to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, brings together European countries on that basis. It will meet in Vienna this afternoon, and our delegate there will certainly make strong representations. I hope that the organisation will be able to follow up the strong statement that it made last year on the basis of what has happened today.
	There have been threats, veiled and otherwise, about the Moscow operation. As of now it is operating normally, and obviously we want that to continue. I would report back to the House if it did not.
	At the end of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman raised a tantalising question that deserves further discussion: the question of whether there is unanimity within the Russian Government about the wisdom of their operations, or whether the actions of the FSB outside Moscow are in the best interests of Russia and its people. I think it important to say that, at this stage, we have not found any part of the Russian Government to be yielding in its defence of the Government's current actions, but I believe that there are many sensible people in that Government who will come to realise that, far from being a demonstration of strength, the actions that they have taken are today a demonstration of weakness.

David Miliband: I certainly agree with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. The united European response is important in this regard, as is the united international response. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is a range of concerns about Russian activities internationally, and he was also right to mention the harassment of the ambassador, which is obviously unacceptable as well.
	The one part of our relationship that has not been interfered with—perhaps I should have mentioned this in response to the questions of the shadow Foreign Secretary—is trade and economic links. We have had no reports of interventions on, or interruptions of, such ties. Obviously, that is important, but my right hon. Friend makes a significant point about the number of fronts on which the Russian Government are currently arguing and are at variance with the international community, and I know that Foreign Ministers, Prime Ministers and Presidents are actively discussing that.

David Miliband: We are in a Catch-22, because although the Russian authorities keep on denouncing what they call the "illegal activities" of the British Council they never say what the illegal activities are, and it is very difficult for someone to prove that that they are not doing something illegal if they are not charged with doing something illegal. Therefore, although I associate myself wholeheartedly with the spirit of my hon. Friend's question, he will understand if I am a bit cautious about pledging to take what he proposes forward.

Mark Hendrick: The harassment of British Council Staff by the FSB—Russia's federal security services—is clearly outrageous. It would seem that all is this is because this Government had the temerity to ask for a murder suspect to be extradited. My right hon. Friend has spoken about the coherent position held by the EU. Does he have any view about, or could he foresee, further international action, perhaps through the offices of the UN?

Keith Simpson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I have no definitive knowledge of that, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
	Human Rights Watch has accused the Kenyan police of using live ammunition to disperse protestors and looters, killing and wounding dozens. Have the Government been able to confirm such reports, and have strong representations been made to the Kenyan authorities about them? Will the Minister confirm reports that the Kenyan Government are maintaining the suspension of news broadcasts? Have the Government protested about such actions? Will the Minister confirm that the UK has urged the two leaders to meet? What is her understanding of their continued refusal to do so? Are they genuinely at odds, or are they looking for reasons not to meet, in the hope of gaining an advantage one way or the other?
	Crucial during this period of instability is the Kenyan army. I taught some of the young men in it when they were officer cadets, and they have a very good reputation for being highly professional. Does the Minister believe that the army's cohesion and discipline have been threatened by the crisis? Can the army be relied on to remain outside politics?
	As the Minister said, it is clear that international efforts have not yet had a significant impact on the crisis. Have Ministers spoken to Mr. Annan, and can the Minister shed any light on what sort of compromise plans he is prepared to propose? What plans are there for further African or international mediation if the Annan initiative does not make progress? What options does she believe the international community has to put pressure on President Kibaki and Mr. Odinga to agree a power-sharing arrangement?
	Will the Minister say a little more about Britain's role? What is the background and experience of the UK high commissioner to Kenya, and how long has he been in his post? There have been reports of some differences of opinion between the UK and the US about what would be the best political arrangement to emerge out of the crisis, and in particular about the UK's clear support for a Government of national unity. Will the Minister confirm that, and is she confident that we are working effectively with our international partners to co-ordinate a response to the crisis?
	Does the Minister, or any other member of the Government, plan to visit Kenya in the near future? If so, does she believe that that would have a positive impact? Does the Minister agree that it is important that we listen to the voices of the Kenyan people? Does she accept that we should send a message of support to the population, making it clear that the international community does not back either of the contending political groups? An impression exists, rightly or wrongly, that the British Government tend to back Mr. Odinga rather than the president. I do not assert that that is the case, but it is the impression conveyed by some press outlets.
	Have the Government sought contact with influential groups in the wider Kenyan society, such as the Churches, business and trade unions? In his recent statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary said that the UK would consider providing more aid, as necessary. Is the Minister confident that sufficient international aid has been dispatched to meet the immediate needs of displaced people, and are the Government considering further assistance?
	Louis Michel, the EU's Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, has warned that the EU may consider cutting long-term development aid to Kenya unless the political situation there improves. Is that something that the British Government support, and at what stage would decisions about EU aid be made?
	All the matters that I have raised will need to be addressed, and Kenya will need international support to that end, but will the Minister assure the House that the Government are giving no thought whatever to the idea of imposing sanctions on the Kenyan Government—something that has been suggested by the Liberal Democrat party? Will she assure the House that the Government are considering the long-term support that should be extended to Kenya, especially as that concerns the reforms to the electoral and judicial systems that the country will need if it is to deal with electoral disputes in the future?
	I turn now to the wider ramifications of the crisis. The Opposition remain concerned about the impact on regional stability. As the Minister knows, Kenya is the transit point for a quarter of the gross domestic products of Uganda and Rwanda, for one third of the GDP of Burundi, and for the supply of many essential commodities. Many hon. Members will know that this is not just a Kenyan crisis but an east African one.
	The road blocks and instability in Kenya have made it impossible to move fuel along the regular routes through east Africa. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are in close contact with the Governments of countries neighbouring Kenya? Are those countries providing good feedback? What assessment has been made of the number of Kenyans who have fled to neighbouring countries? Is humanitarian assistance reaching them, as their presence is having a major impact on the economies of the countries involved? Will the Minister confirm disturbing reports that Ugandan soldiers have been brought into Kenya, and does she agree that that would be a worrying escalation of the situation?
	There have been al-Qaeda attacks and major terrorist incidents in Kenya in the past. Is there any concern that the current crisis might provide cover for an upsurge in that sort of activity, especially since al-Qaeda is known to be active in Somalia?
	Kenya is an important hub for international bodies and non-governmental organisations operating across Africa. Has the crisis had any impact of their ability to operate?
	In the past, Kenya has been held up as a good example of a new African country which, although not a perfect democracy, has managed to maintain many democratic institutions. Its level of violence has been lower than that experienced in many of its neighbours. The sadness is that Kenya may be joining the group of African countries that are sliding away from the democratic process. I am sure that all hon. Members would want the Government to give Kenya all possible assistance, but to make it clear to the authorities there that the UK does not back one political party over another.

Jo Swinson: I welcome that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is right: it will, of course, be key that everybody involved in the Kenyan political process buys into the electoral commission processes, and the body must be seen to be independent.
	The idea of a Government of national unity is unlikely to work. Let us remember that Kibaki reneged on a memorandum of understanding between him and Raila Odinga back in 2002, so there is unlikely to be sufficient trust. The only realistic solution is for a transitional power-sharing Government to take office, and a timetable for new elections to be drawn up. It will take time for Kenyans who have been displaced to be resettled and reregistered to vote, and a lot of rebuilding work will have to be done across the discredited branches of government. The restoration of the electoral commission's independence is a vital step, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) says.
	2002 brought a new sense of optimism to Kenya. That year's elections deserved the praise that they received for being the most free and fair in Kenyan history. Last December, voters again approached the polls with optimism, and recorded turnout was 70 per cent. However, the situation has quickly turned into a seminal crisis. Whether the violence is blamed on tribal tensions, a conflict between the haves and have-nots, or an intergenerational clash, we should not lose sight of the fact that the direct cause of the bloodshed was the manipulation of the presidential election result.
	As we enter the second day of fresh protests in Kenya, the potential for further large-scale loss of life is very real. Pressure must be brought to bear on Kibaki so that Kenya can have a transitional Government and fresh elections. Failing to act now will push Kenya closer to the brink.

James Duddridge: I must admit that I am somewhat resistant to modernisation of the House, but topical debates are a brilliant idea, as a number of contributions clearly demonstrated today.
	Perhaps I should not admit it as an ex-banker, but sometimes I struggle with numbers—250,000 people in Kenya have been displaced; I struggle with the enormity of that number. More than 600 people have been killed—about the same as the number of Members in this House. I think of the life of the young girl in Kenya whom my wife sponsors. She writes to us every six months about what is happening in her village, which is one of the affected areas.
	To put the numbers into context, 6,000 people regularly meet at Southend United football club; 250,000 is an enormous number. The situation is horrific for Kenya, the region and the African continent generally. As one who spent a lot of time working in Africa before entering this place, I know it to be a place of great optimism and entrepreneurship. There are great business opportunities in Africa. However, every crisis there is an indicator for the uninitiated that Africa is not a safe place in which to holiday or work or to trade with. That is a complete tragedy.
	A number of hon. Members have spoken about Kenya's regional role. I, too, am deeply concerned about the links with Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi in respect of essential goods and petrol. The Kenyan crisis could have a severe long-term impact on the whole region. I would welcome any information that the Minister can provide on Nairobi being a financial hub for the whole region. I presume that the stock exchange is closed and that financial transactions are not taking place; if so, that will have wider impacts, beyond Nairobi.
	Kenya always provided great optimism—just as, ironically, Zimbabwe did as a large, affluent country with lots of natural resources. Now, however, those are two major blights in Africa. Although we should not interfere in Kenyan affairs, we should look critically at the failure of the British Government and international institutions to spot the problems. Specifically, there were strong indications before 27 December that the elections might not be free and fair and could cause problems. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what representations the high commissioner made to the Department about the elections and their likely validity before they took place. Were there any indications that people were preparing for violence, if that was indeed premeditated?
	The statistics and facts prove absolutely that the elections cannot be relied on. In some areas, 115 per cent. of the voters apparently voted. In an intervention, I mentioned the problem of the electoral register and the manipulation that left whole tribal groups with a common name off the register. All that happened before the election, so there were early indicators that there could be major problems.
	The Kenyan economy might not be fundamentally damaged. There is some cause for optimism; everyone feared that the bombs in Nairobi in 1998 and Mombasa in 2002 would bring Kenya and its tourism to a grinding halt. However, Kenya has managed to get back on its feet and attract business and tourism again. However, the country is losing £15 million a day as a result of the problems, and a country with a GDP per capita of about $500 a year cannot afford that.
	Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I spend a lot of time considering Africa through the prism of development and the departmental prism of the Department for International Development rather than that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There needs to be greater co-ordination between the two; it seems farcical that, as the DFID budget is rightly being ramped up and spending on governance is increasing—some of that money needs to flow through to places such as Kenya—the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, for example, is not receiving the same funding increases. Perhaps that organisation would be more effective than DFID trying to reinvent the wheel. Although I support DFID as an independent Department, perhaps there is not the co-ordination that there would have been under a single Department in respect of situations such as Kenya's. I urge greater co-operation.
	This topical debate has rightly concentrated on Kenya's problems, but the Minister should take time to reflect on what the Department does to spot other problem areas. We often talk about the three major issues of trade, aid and conflict resolution for the developing world, but we need to consider not only post-conflict, but pre-conflict resolution. There were certain signs in Kenya that indicated that there might be social, civil and political unrest—issues of corruption, overpopulation and pressures on the land are very evident in Kenya and they are easily monitored. Corruption can be followed through the excellent Transparency International and population growth is closely monitored by a number of international organisations, including the UN. Land pressure can be monitored by looking at agricultural statistics on land yield. Surely the FCO should do some statistical modelling to note countries at risk across Africa and give greater economic, governance or political support. Indeed, extra FCO and DFID people should go to the country to try to assist.
	I did not hear the Minister mention British citizens in Kenya. When my good friends Councillors Liz and Mel Day were in Kenya, their return was delayed because of the difficulties. While it is not our primary concern to worry about British citizens—and should not be, given the large numbers of people killed and displaced—there are significant issues in that regard.
	Several Members mentioned the African Union, which must be the powerhouse of change and peer-to-peer review within Africa. It is not right for the UK, as an ex-colonial Government, to impose solutions, nor even for the EU or any other international organisations to do so—much better that the AU should do it. That is easy to say, but we need to give the AU a lot more support. It would be fair to say that while Britain has encouraged the AU to act in several other countries—for example, in Zimbabwe—it does not have the momentum to be what we would call the critical friend that would allow countries to be critical of one another and say, "You're my neighbour but what you're doing is unacceptable." We need to give it the confidence to be able to do that.
	That said, I am optimistic. Kenya recovered from the Nairobi bombs. I wholly disagree with one aspect of the speech by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), which was very good overall. I think that imposing sanctions or travel bans now, 30 days or so after the incident, would be premature and counter-productive, even if it was the right thing to do at some point. It might be possible to resolve the situation quite quickly, and there should not be a knee-jerk reaction to these events.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 4, at end insert
	'and the railway assets at Waterloo Station released by London and Continental Railways.'.

Christopher Chope: I acknowledge that my amendment is more probing in order to raise the issue, while I view amendment No. 4, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, as a more substantive amendment. If we have the opportunity later, after withdrawing my amendment—providing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, agree to it—I would like to see amendment No. 4 put to the vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is absolutely right that that is a mandatory amendment. On the other hand, even that amendment will not achieve anything unless we have a clear indication from the Government that there is a will to do something. I note that the Under-Secretary acknowledges that. Let us hope that this debate will provide him with an opportunity to explain why we have the mere prospect of having one of those platforms opened for domestic services by the end of 2008 and no prospect whatever of any of the others being available for such services in the foreseeable future.
	Of course, there are all sorts of available options, some of which are incompatible with each other, which is the nature of options. That is why the Strategic Rail Authority, before it was abolished by the Government, was wise to engage the services of consultants. What depresses me is that, all these months and years on, it seems that the Government have still not reached a clear conclusion. Indeed, I do not believe that the Government commissioned the additional work recommended by the SRA consultants, so it provides yet a further example—to the detriment of hard-pressed commuters—of Government indecision in the critical area of public investment. Taxpayers are already paying through the nose for the cost of subsidies to Network Rail and railway services.
	We know that socialism is normally associated with public waste, public expenditure and declining quality of services, but there is no reason why the Government should make a habit of it, particularly in respect of Waterloo international. This should not be a party political issue because Labour constituencies are served by services going into Waterloo station and there are certainly Labour voters at Waterloo on a Monday morning. People are increasingly bemused by the fact that the Government talk the talk about investment in railways and the need to transfer people from road to rail, yet, when they have an opportunity to invest in it and take a decision, they fail to do so. Indeed, they funk it. That is exactly what has happened in respect of Waterloo international terminal.
	This Bill is all about ensuring that we continue to subsidise the channel tunnel rail link services with taxpayers' money and add value to London and Continental Railways. Yet, as I have said, the Government seem to be very mean when it comes to finding the necessary investment to make the most of the assets at Waterloo. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what has happened since the publication of the Strategic Railway Authority's review in July 2005.
	This issue affects a great many Members of Parliament. That is why I was a co-signatory to an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who is anxious for the assets to be returned to use as quickly as possible. What worries him and many others is that although the Government know that it would be right to invest in Clapham Junction as well, and thus to enable full use to be made of the facilities at Waterloo, they lack the will to find the money to do so, thereby leaving the commuting public and other passengers in a much worse position than would be possible if they made the necessary investment.
	I do not need to make a meal of this issue, but I would not want anyone to think that the fact that I had not spoken at length meant that I did not feel strongly that the Government must address the issue and address it today, and also apologise to the people of London and others who use Waterloo for the fact that they have already wasted valuable years with their indecision.

Peter Soulsby: The hon. Gentleman makes the use of those platforms—which is, indeed, very desirable—sound very simple. Does he not accept that it is a complicated issue that would involve alterations not only to the station, but down the track, and particularly at Clapham junction, as has been suggested?

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful for your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of my colleagues might think that the record would be better if I were turned round more often.
	I want to ask some further questions, and I hope that the Minister will address them. Why is it only now that the options for the medium to long-term use of all five international platforms are being considered? Why is only one platform being prepared for domestic services? Will he confirm that it will meet the December 2008 target? In the written answer of 18 December that I quoted, he said that the work planned at Waterloo is designed to allow longer trains to use the platforms. South West Trains runs 10 and 12-car trains on the main line and hopes to extend the number of cars used to at least 14. The reality is that the Eurostar platforms are the longest in Britain and can accommodate 18 carriages, so surely they are long enough to support the long trains.
	If the reason for the delay is an ambitious plan for Waterloo, when will it be revealed? What is it? What will it cost? Is the ambitious plan that the Minister mentions merely a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of the Government and Network Rail for not having a plan to use all the five platforms immediately on decommissioning? We seek answers to those questions from the Minister.
	The mess in the lack of preparedness for the decommissioning and the vacation is symptomatic of the failure to give the people of this country an accountable, efficient railway system that is focused on the needs of the passenger. The long-suffering commuters into Waterloo are amazed that this national asset, which is part of the answer to their problems, sits there lying empty. They will be unforgiving if four platforms continue to lie empty until 2012 to 2014, as the Minister suggested in one of his written answers.
	There is a way through this situation. Under section 6(1) of the Railways Act 2005, the Secretary of State has the power to
	"provide, or agree to provide, financial assistance to any person—
	(a) for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development of railway services or railway assets; or
	(b) for any other purpose relating to a railway or to railway services."
	Before anyone starts asking whether we are about to hear a spending commitment, I should remind hon. Members that financial assistance as defined by that Act is
	"(a) the making of grants or loans;
	(b) the giving of guarantees; and
	(c) investments in bodies corporate".
	So that does not necessarily imply that spending would be necessary, but it does imply that the Government may be required to give guarantees.
	I am sure that the Minister will tell us that part of the rationale for this short Bill is to ensure that the financial assistance, as defined by the 2005 Act, already given to London and Continental Railways by the Government remains in place as the construction phase ends and the operational phase begins. The Government currently provide financial assistance for capital funding in several ways. The whole financial assistance is utilised, including loans, Government-guaranteed bonds, securitised bonds and other debt facilities. The Government also have the power to provide some revenue funding for domestic services operating on CTRL. Therefore, it is clear that as part of the overall CTRL project, an asset—albeit an asset that is now post-construction and operationally redundant to CTRL—could receive a Government guarantee of financial assistance of some form to maximise its usage or disposal value. The disposal value of the Eurostar platforms, if disposed for railway purposes, would undoubtedly be maximised by ensuring that they were operational.
	We are told that the Bill is necessary because, among other reasons, the maximisation of the disposal value of other railway assets must be ensured. If the Government are to continue to provide revenue funding for the rest of CTRL, and capital funding guarantees, why not make Waterloo part of the scheme? It is undoubtedly critical that the platforms at Waterloo left vacant by Eurostar's relocation are put to use. We are all aware of the capacity shortages on our railways and they are particularly acute at Waterloo. The liberation of the five platforms represents a golden opportunity to address some of those capacity needs.
	The Government have, by the virtue of the Railways Act 2005, the power to provide financial assistance to those who own or run railway services or assets. The amendment in my name will put an obligation on the Government to exercise that power in such a way as to ensure that the platforms at Waterloo, which they will own from March, are put to domestic train use. The Government will fail in their obligation to passengers at Waterloo if they fail to do that. Amendment No. 4 would ensure that that obligation is fulfilled.
	I am known as a big fan of high-speed rail. Now that the dust has settled after the spectacular opening of St. Pancras international, it has become painfully obvious that not all of the obligations of the move from Waterloo have been honoured. The last cross-channel train has pulled out of Waterloo international and there is an eerie void where it once hummed with activity. That void must be filled. The Government must meet their obligations and, unless we receive more reassurance from the Minister this afternoon, I will seek to divide the House on the amendment.

John Horam: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has elaborated and clarified his comment, but the fact is that this is not a big issue. The work could be done relatively quickly.
	The Minister must know that what we want is some quick hits. I am trying to help him. He—a Minister in a Labour Government—would be able say to my constituents, "Here is something that will benefit you within a few months." We have a wonderful opportunity, but apparently it is not to be taken. Perhaps we are seeing the dead hand of Network Rail. We have seen how bad Network Rail it is and we hope that, eventually, the Minister will do something about it. We have plans, as he may know. Perhaps the dead hand belongs to some other group involved in the railways, to civil servants, or to the Minister himself. The Government have an opportunity to do something imaginative and quick-acting, which is almost never possible with railway investment. I hope that the Minister will comment on that possibility.

Tom Harris: I was about to point out that no one has yet mentioned the relevance of the amendments to the Bill, which deals with the channel tunnel rail link and not with Waterloo or any other Network Rail mainline station.
	Clause 1 confirms that the power under section 6 of the Railways Act 2005 permitting the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for railway purposes applies to the rail link and the train services running on it. Clause 1 does not give a new power; it simply clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the power will apply to High Speed 1, as it applies to the rest of the rail network. The rail link that the clause refers to is HS1, the railway between St. Pancras and the mouth of the channel tunnel. Waterloo station is not part of the rail link and is not subject to the provisions of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, which gave rise to the uncertainty.
	It is also worth noting that ownership of Waterloo international terminal is to be transferred to the Department for Transport in March this year, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, and it will not be among the assets sold as part of the HS1 business. There is not considered to be any ambiguity about the application of section 6 funding powers to Waterloo. The transfer of Waterloo does not form part of the restructuring with which the Bill is concerned. As a result, amendment No. 7 is unnecessary and irrelevant.
	Turning to amendment No. 4, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon on his intellectual acrobatics in attempting to justify its logic and crowbar it into a short Bill concerned primarily—I would say exclusively—with the channel tunnel rail link. He started by describing his amendment as more subtle than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). If subtle is the definition of a brick, I suppose I agree.
	Amendment No. 4 would ensure that domestic services could use the platforms at Waterloo international. Assurances that that will be possible have already been given on numerous occasions. As far back as October 2005, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling)—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but then the Secretary of State for Transport—announced that the platforms at Waterloo International would be retained for domestic passenger use. We debated the issue again in March 2007, when I described our plans for Waterloo in some detail. In case hon. Members wish to consult the record, I should tell them that the debate was on 14 March in Westminster Hall.
	My officials have been assessing the scope and benefits of altering the platforms at Waterloo station for domestic services for some time; the process did not begin recently. A feasibility study completed in 2006 concluded that running South West Trains services to those platforms would deliver short-term performance benefits, and that long-term development options required further consideration. After the transfer of ownership of Waterloo, work to convert platform 20 for domestic services will start, and that capacity should be available from December 2008. That is our short-term plan.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman be entirely surprised if I tell him that I do not have those details to hand? However, I shall be more than happy to write to him. Our proposal for the medium term is linked to the high level output specification objective of providing longer trains across the network to meet the expected growth rates forecast over the coming years. The scheme being considered by the Department and Network Rail could see longer commuter trains operating not only on the lines to Windsor and Reading, but on mainline suburban routes to Surbiton, Chessington and Hampton Court. Currently, services on these routes operate into the shortest platforms—platforms 1 to 4—of Waterloo.
	The Department's proposal would see services being shuffled across the existing station, with the Windsor services operating into and out of Waterloo international. That would allow the other lengthened commuter services to access longer platforms within the main Waterloo train shed. Clearly, work is already in hand to implement the Government's plans for Waterloo international to be redeployed for domestic services.
	The amendment seeks to go further and commits the Government to spending on the station for that purpose. That is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. Is the hon. Member for Wimbledon suggesting that a future Conservative Government, instead of putting commitments on major infrastructure changes into the high-level output specification, which I assume his party will ultimately accept, would impose on the Secretary of State a statutory commitment that, not only in respect of Waterloo, but presumably in respect of every mainline station and all 23 main lines throughout the country, all those changes, improvements and spending commitments would be mandated in primary legislation? If he does not intend to do that, he is creating an unfortunate and illogical precedent today.
	There are many factors to consider when designing major changes to a busy station. There was a wide range of interested parties to consult. Adding the amendments to the Bill would not be the most effective way of securing the best outcome for passengers at Waterloo. Domestic services are scheduled to begin operation from the international terminal in December 2008. Under the support arrangements in place, we will continue to work on the long-term options.
	I conclude by referring to a comment from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). In his world the conversion of the platforms to domestic use could be done tomorrow—or perhaps, if he were being more realistic, Monday. I have to tell him that I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) that the engineering works, not only in the station but on the tracks outside Waterloo, are substantial.
	Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that I, my colleagues or the Department for Transport had the option of making the platforms immediately available to domestic services, but that instead of pursuing what he called that quick and easy option, we deliberately decided not to do so? That makes no sense. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that I, as the Minister with a vested political interest in making our rail network more effective, would not deliberately turn my back on a cheap and quick option.

Christopher Chope: I used to be the shadow Minister for the millennium dome, so I will not be drawn into a long debate about that saga. The millennium dome was, at all material times, a white elephant; Waterloo international is a very fine building that needs to be brought back into use straight away. The problem with the millennium dome was that it was difficult to find anybody who could make a commercial go of it, whereas everybody is saying, "Let's get Waterloo station back into full operational use as soon as possible."
	The Government talk about doing something by 2014. If they had a clear plan, the first thing that one would expect them to say—for example, to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who made an excellent speech—"The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is feasible," or, "That is not feasible." Of course, it would not be feasible if the bridge linking the old Eurostar line that goes over the railway tracks between Clapham Junction and Waterloo to allow services from Petts Wood and Orpington to come into Waterloo were taken away. What depresses me about this debate is that I would have expected a Minister to say, "That's a good idea—yes, we can do that," or, "That's a bad idea—it won't be practical because we think that our priority should be services coming in from the south-west." The fact that the Minister does not seem to know which of those options is to be used shows how far we are from reaching any conclusion.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, they have failed, and sooner rather than later, more and more people are going to realise the extent of that failure.
	I shall quote briefly paragraph 5(4) of the Strategic Rail Authority final report dated 11 July 2005:
	"Waterloo domestic station is one of the largest and busiest stations in London. Its 19 platforms are intensively used, particularly those serving the Main Line, Suburban and Windsor Lines destinations.
	The Waterloo area is currently a limited destination in itself, and most passengers arriving at Waterloo interchange onto other lines...Passenger circulation is a particular issue both in the main concourse and for interchange. Network Rail believe that the station is approaching the limit of its safe passenger handling capacity and that works will be required to increase passenger capacity if passenger numbers increase significantly. It is expected that at current rates of growth (and without any changes to Waterloo International), capacity will be reached by 2011."
	That is three years before the Minister says that the platforms at the former international station will be open. That information was available to the Government—I accept that it was not available to him, because he has become a Minister only recently—in July 2005. It is clear today that in the intervening period the Government have done absolutely nothing to address the issue.
	When my constituents find in 2011 that they cannot get into Waterloo because of passenger congestion, what will I say to them? I will say that there was an opportunity to increase capacity, but the Government declined to take it. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred to Crossrail. That is an incredibly expensive project. For a much smaller investment, the lives of tens of thousands of commuters into Waterloo could be completely transformed, with quicker, more reliable and more comfortable services, safer platforms and more circulation space for passengers.
	This has been a disappointing debate, because I had hoped that we would get a clearer picture from the Government, and that the impression I had before the debate that the Government did not have a clue where they were going with Waterloo international would be removed by the Minister's remarks. I am afraid that that feeling has been confirmed by the Minister's remarks, so the only way we have of showing our disapproval of the Government's laid-back attitude on this matter is to divide the House. The best thing to divide on would be amendment No. 4, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 3, page 1, line 5, at end add—
	'(3) In subsection (1) "rail services" refer only to those services that both originate and terminate in the United Kingdom.'.
	The Minister accused me of intellectual gymnastics. This amendment is full of intellectual clarity, so we shall have no problem with it. He will recognise the amendment because it is very similar to one that I tabled in Committee. I tabled it again because, as I said in Committee on reading the Minister's answer, we would like to seek further clarification, or to press the matter to a Division if we have a disappointing response.
	As the Minister said, clause 1 is intended to clear up any potential confusion about whether the Government can continue to provide financial support to the rail link and the services running on it, now that the construction phase is complete and the services are up and running. That is deemed necessary because any future buyer might be in some doubt about it, which is why the clause includes the words:
	"For the avoidance of doubt".
	The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to subsidise HS1 into its operational phase, but it is the stated intention of the Government that this power will be exercised in relation to domestic services only, and not to international ones. The explanatory notes to the Bill say as much:
	"the Secretary of State will provide revenue funding for domestic services operating on the CTRL".
	The Under-Secretary said:
	"It would be wrong for the UK taxpayer to subsidise services across the continent." ——[Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 13.]
	It is therefore strange that the Government's stated intention is not reflected on the face of the Bill. Clause 1 states that the Secretary of State may continue to provide funds
	"in relation to the rail link or railway services on it."
	However, a large proportion of services on the rail link will be international. Nothing in the Bill prevents the subsidy of services bound for or returning from continental Europe.
	The Bill states that
	"nothing in sections 31 to 33 of the 1996 Act prevents the powers of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Railways Act 2005... from being exercised in relation to the rail link or railways services on it."
	We contend that leaving the clause unamended will not restrict revenue funding to domestic services, as the Government require. Elsewhere, the clause uses the phrase:
	"For the avoidance of doubt".
	Let us ensure that doubt is avoided and ambivalence removed. The amendment would add a new subsection, which states that
	"'rail services' refer only to those services that both originate and terminate in the United Kingdom."
	We are led to believe that it is not the Government's intention to fund international services, so let us make it clear in the Bill.
	In Committee, I asked the Under-Secretary,
	"in extremis, does not the Bill allow the possibility of part of the service that Eurostar is running in the UK being open to revenue funding?"
	He replied:
	"In essence, if, in the short term, any extra subsidy were to be provided to Eurostar Ltd, such as through leasing stock agreements, the hon. Gentleman is right. That could be interpreted as being a short-term subsidy from the Government. However, as I have repeatedly said, it is not the intention of the Government publicly to provide any subsidy to Eurostar in the long term."— [Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 14.]
	The Under-Secretary's answer was extraordinarily revealing. Although he repeatedly said that it is not the Government's intention, there is a genuine possibility that the Government will not be able to fulfil their intention.
	If it is the Government's intention that there is revenue funding only for domestic services, let us include that on the face of the Bill for the avoidance of doubt and ambiguity. The Government's current position appears to be that they offer revenue funding and support to domestic services and not to international services, but only in the long term, not in the short term. That is ludicrous. In Committee, the Under-Secretary told us that my amendment was unnecessary. He said that the power to support rail services under the 2005 Act extended only to the United Kingdom. That may be the case, but, as I pointed out, some of the trains that run on British soil are international services. As his answer showed, the Government may well subsidise some international services in the short term. Being in British territory does not necessarily make a train a domestic service.
	Does the Under-Secretary concede that, in the light of his reply in Committee, just because the Secretary of State's powers are restricted by the 2005 Act to funding only services in Great Britain, funding is not restricted to domestic services? Does he concede that some trains that run on British track are international services? If he concedes those points, does he admit that the current wording of clause 1 does not meet the Government's stated objective? For the avoidance of doubt, my amendment will help the Under-Secretary. I hope that he will accept it in that spirit of help.

Greg Knight: Given that my amendment has been signed not only by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Wimbledon but by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), to whom I am obliged, it would not be stretching the truth to say that it has the ring of an all-party amendment.
	Clause 4 gives the Office of Rail Regulation power to charge fees, stating that
	"the Office of Rail Regulation may by notice require a rail link undertaker to pay a fee in respect of the exercise of any of the Office of Rail Regulation's functions in relation to the rail link."
	My concern relates to subsection (2), which states
	"The amount of a fee under subsection (1) in any case shall be—
	(a) such amount as the Office of Rail Regulation considers to represent the costs reasonably incurred by it in the exercise of the function in relation to the rail link".
	As I said in Committee, what worries me is that, in effect, the Office of Rail Regulation will be advocate, judge and jury in its own cause. It will surely never admit that the fee it wishes to charge is unreasonable. Therefore, there is no objective test of whether the fee imposed is reasonable to a third party.

Greg Knight: I do not know the answer to that, but my concerns nevertheless remain. If this wording is used elsewhere, however, perhaps I should start a campaign to amend the wording in other statutes similarly. If we were to have a profligate or wasteful ORR, it could cover its high-spending ways by imposing fees that are higher than necessary but that it decrees reasonable.
	Amendment No. 9 would change the wording so that the fee payable in any case would be such an amount as
	"is reasonably incurred by the Office of Rail Regulation".
	In other words, it would introduce an objective test, so that in any disputed case that might come before the courts, they would be able to say whether that is a reasonable amount. That is how we should proceed, and the amendment's wording is far better than the original wording in the Bill.
	I began to make this point in Committee, and the Minister stopped me in my tracks. He said he had listened to my point, and that if I were to table an amendment on Report:
	"I shall be happy to consider it, but I make no promises at this stage on whether it will be acceptable to the Government." ——[Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 21.]
	When we started on the process of considering the Bill and the Minister was facing questions, he rather dismissed my point, but when I returned to it in Committee proper it was clear that he had been reflecting on my remarks and he generously said that he would consider such a suggestion on Report. He has subsequently indicated to me that he is minded to accept this amendment.
	I do not want to blight the Minister's career, but may I say to him that he has behaved as a model Minister in this instance? He listened to the argument and felt that a fair point was being made from the Opposition Benches, and he has graciously conceded that the amendment should be made.
	I therefore hope that no Member will disagree with amendment No. 9. I am always nervous when I see my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in the Chamber, because I know how volatile he is, but I hope that I am taking him with me in my arguments.
	Amendment No. 2 also relates to the power to charge fees under clause 4, but seeks to make a change by adding at the end of proposed new section 21A(6),
	"but such further notice shall not include any increase to the fee payable in the original notice attributable to the fee remaining unpaid after the date specified in the original notice."
	Proposed new section 21A(6) gives the ORR power to revise a fee notice that it has already issued by issuing a subsequent notice. My concern is that if there were an unreasonable person in the ORR they could issue a notice, and if it was not paid by the time stated in the notice they could issue a second notice increasing the fee—perhaps even adding interest on to it—and that subsequent notice would then supersede the original fee notice issued. That is not how the ORR should behave, but it could behave like that under the Bill as drafted. My amendment No. 2, which I am delighted my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has signed, would prevent that from happening. In other words, the ORR would not be able to issue a subsequent notice mentioning a higher fee solely because the original fee was not paid on time.
	The Minister may be less convinced about amendment No. 2, but I ask him to reflect on the points I have made. Surely it is not proper for the ORR, or indeed for any body, to be able to revise a fee and thus impose a penalty on the person due to pay it merely on the grounds that they have been late in paying it. I hope that the Minister will give me a full house today by accepting that amendment too.

Greg Knight: I join those who have contributed to this Third Reading debate in welcoming the amended Bill and wishing it well. I understand that the Government give £6.5 billion annually in subsidy to the rail network; that is a sum of which any Government should be proud. However, it is interesting that, despite all the congestion problems that we have heard about, our railways still carry only 6 per cent. of all passenger travel. Some 80 per cent. of journeys are still undertaken by car. Although the channel tunnel rail link is rightly a priority, at some point in the not-too-distant future there needs to be either a shift or an increase in transport funding so that road users are treated equitably.
	I thank the Minister again for the fair-minded way in which he has dealt with the Bill and for his approach throughout. If there is any justice in this world, he will be made Secretary of State at the next reshuffle.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting for today's Adjournment debate my suggested subject of Government support for the peace process in Sri Lanka. I had previously applied for a debate on the subject, but it could not happen. Mr. Speaker has kindly acceded to my request to reinstate the debate today. Little did I know that the debate would be as timely as it has turned out; I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for understanding the appropriateness of this debate at this time.
	It is sad—this year should have been one of great celebration for all the peoples of Sri Lanka. The 60th anniversary of the independence of Ceylon from the United Kingdom falls on 4 February. In normal circumstances, that would be an occasion for great celebration across that beautiful country. Furthermore, this year is the 30th anniversary of Sri Lanka's change to an executive presidency. In the same year, under that constitution, Tamil was recognised, with English and Sinhala, as an official language. The country's history suggests that there is much for celebration, but that is not how it has been in recent years.
	Since I was elected to this place in 1983 there has been a state of emergency and a continuing difficulty that is most easily and sadly described as an effective civil war. It has continued month in, month out, and last year ended in sad circumstances—violence, attacks, deaths and a very dim prospect. Sadly, this year has begun equally badly in two senses. First, the Government, for reasons that I can understand but that are ultimately misguided, announced on 3 January that they were to terminate the ceasefire agreement that was entered into in 2002, and yesterday that ceasefire agreement ended. In parallel with that, over recent weeks there has been continuing violence, with attacks in the north and the south, the assassination of a Minister and of another Member of Parliament, and the killing of innocent people—people absolutely not part of the political process, including children—on bus journeys.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that my view, like that, I imagine, of every single person in the House and elsewhere, is that violence is unacceptable, that killing other people in the pursuit of political ends is not the way forward, and that, as other places have learned—I welcome to his place the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who had direct experience of this in our country, in Northern Ireland—there must be an alternative route that says that violence is put aside and people talk to each other until they reach a solution.
	So we have a dear Commonwealth country, with huge friendship between all its peoples and our people, now entering its 32nd year of unrest and civil war. Let me give just two or three sentences of background—shared knowledge among people here, but more for the record than for our debate. It is a country of about 20 million people, or thereabouts, three quarters of whom—approximately; I am not trying to be overly precise—are from a Sinhalese background and an eighth of whom, about 3 million people, are from a Tamil background, with other smaller groups. Two thirds of the population are Buddhist by faith adherence, about 15 per cent. are Hindu, about 7.5 per cent. are Muslim, and slightly less than that are Christians and people of other faiths. In this country, we have, best estimates tell us, about 200,000, or probably nearer to a quarter of a million, people from Sri Lanka, almost equally divided between Sinhalese people and Tamil people, contributing wonderfully to our nation in every respect, in business, in teaching, in medicine, in the professions, in culture, in sport—just a fantastic contribution.
	I have no vested constituency interest in this issue. I have friends who are Sinhalese and Tamil, but I do not have a huge Sri Lankan population in my bit of London, although friends in other parts of London have significant Sri Lankan populations. I am not doing this because I have 10 per cent. of my electorate to address and want to deal with their concerns.
	Back in the '70s, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was formed as a liberation struggle movement. We know, in general terms, what its history has been. It led to the fact that in 2001, in this Parliament, we proscribed it as an organisation in this country. In May 2005, the European Union took a similar view. As a result, one of the players—an organisation that is not going to go away, whatever the Government and other people may wish—is officially illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world. We are familiar with that in this country, as we similarly banned the Irish Republican Army—the IRA—and placed restrictions on Sinn Fein in all those past days in Northern Ireland.
	Just over two years ago, we had the latest political resolution when, in a very hotly contested presidential election, current President Rajapakse was elected by a narrow majority of 50.3 per cent. to 48.3 per cent. over Ranil Wickremesinghe, with the two big coalition parties providing the two main candidates. This is a country where, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, people in high office have often had a very difficult time personally. One Prime Minister and one President have been assassinated, as have a Foreign Minister and many others. As in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, families who have been involved in politics have sadly been afflicted by killing and terrible personal experiences. No one would wish that on anyone. A coalition Government are in place, who reflect the view of the President, by and large. There is a majority who reflect his view.
	In this House, we have sought, along with the Minister, who has always been extremely co-operative, and his fellow Ministers, to debate regularly how the Government and others in the UK can assist in the peace process. I pay tribute not only to the right hon. Member for Torfaen, but to people such as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and other colleagues who have taken a consistent interest and sought to facilitate progress. Some of my colleagues who cannot be here today were with me yesterday at a meeting, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for St. Ives (Andrew George). The former has constituents from Sri Lanka, and the latter does not, but they have taken a concerned interest and want proper development, economic success and prosperity for Sri Lanka. The Minister made the Government's position very clear at Foreign and Commonwealth questions last week. He called for the Sri Lankan Government to go down a different route to try to come to a peaceful and just conclusion. Sadly, that did not happen, and formally, as of yesterday, the ceasefire is at an end.
	Last night, in the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall, there was a large gathering of the Tamil community. Colleagues from all three major parties met people to hear them express their concerns, which they did moderately but with great anxiety. I know that many of them have lost relatives; they have had family killed or injured. Many cannot get things through to their relatives, particularly if they are in the Jaffna peninsula in the north. At 4 o'clock today, a petition was presented to No. 10 expressing the concern of the Tamil community here that the ceasefire should be reinstated and that the peace process should continue.
	During this period of catastrophe, according to the best figures available—Government figures that are not fundamentally disputed—70,000 people may have been killed and 1 million may have been displaced. On top of all that, as if it were not enough, the tsunami struck, and a further 30,000 or 40,000 people were killed on Boxing day just over three years ago; hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. This country desperately needs peace in order that it can have prosperity. I will not go through the litany of killing, but in the past two years probably 5,000 people have been killed—estimates vary—and that has continued, as I said, even in recent weeks.
	I shall make a linked point before I come to my reflections and suggestions. I have been in touch with the Sri Lankan high commissioner here, and I am grateful for her considered response to my request for an accurate, up-to-date statement of the Sri Lankan position, to ensure that I was not misrepresenting it.
	We have always had a good relationship, though a tense one, as we have debated the issues. According to independent reports, the economy is suffering as a consequence of what has happened there. There is growth in the economy, but the trade deficit has widened by 66 per cent. in a year, and exports have gone down. In November, imports went up, and stocks are going down. Probably some 1 million people are in poverty, mainly in areas affected most by the conflict. That situation will go on, and it is a worldwide phenomenon. On the BBC World Service this morning I heard someone reflect that it is always the case in the developing world that conflict absolutely and directly exacerbates poverty.
	The Government and international bodies, such as Amnesty and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, have a similar view as to what has happened in the peace process. There is not really any international dispute.
	The agreement that was reached in 2002 followed unilateral efforts to hold a ceasefire for a month and see how that went. The ceasefire has been piecemeal and inconsistent, and of course, as everybody knows, it has not been universally respected. However, in the middle of it, suggestions for proper devolution were made. Proposals for an autonomous Tamil province or part of the country were on the table. I do not mean proposals for local government but a new constitutional settlement, such as, in some ways, we have achieved here, and as has happened in many other parts of the world. Things went well, but then the past President intervened and sacked people from various Ministries and progress stalled.
	People keep hoping, but their hopes are repeatedly dashed. After the tsunami, people hoped that it might, paradoxically, be an incentive to get together but that was not to be. It is troubling that there is a universal view that, despite countries such as ours linking their development assistance to the peace process—the Government agreed a strategy in 2002 that was rightly clear about that—human rights have been poor. That remains a general understanding. The Foreign Office website states:
	"The Sri Lankan government has taken steps to improve its very poor human rights records of the 1980s and the 1990s."
	Yet records for recent years and months confirm that serious cause for concern remains.
	Amnesty International's 2007 report states that the United Nations special rapporteur reported in March on a visit made some months previously and on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The rapporteur said that freedom of expression, movement, association and participation were threatened, especially for Tamil and Muslim civilians.
	In May, the president appointed new people to the human rights commission, which then no longer appeared to fulfil its constitutional requirements or the international requirements for independence. In September, the supreme court ruled that there was no legal basis for the UN Human Rights Committee to hear cases from Sri Lanka. That was regrettable. As the year went on, international human rights bodies raised concerns about the escalating human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. That has been on the agenda at the Security Council.
	I do not say that those leading the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam do not share responsibility, as insurgents, for the situation. However, it is clear from reports that Sri Lankan Government responses have not been confined to those acting militarily. They have intervened in the lives of civilians and gone far beyond what is internationally recognised as acceptable. I understand the provocation when suicide bombing happens and ships get blown up, but Sri Lanka spends $1 billion on defence—money that should logically be spent on development.
	Amnesty International says that last year, humanitarian aid agencies were unable to reach many of those at risk in the north and east. From August, aid supplies to the north were obstructed by the closure of the Jaffna peninsula road and a sea blockade by the LTTE.

Simon Hughes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman spoke at the same meeting as me last night, although he was there before me. The community was grateful that he was there. The A9, the main road to Jaffna, is the only appropriate and established thoroughfare for a huge community on the peninsula in the north. It has been closed for a long time; it was reopened but is now closed again. Last night I heard at first hand people saying that they could not get medical supplies, food or money through to their families in that part of the country.
	The Sri Lankan Government say that although the road is closed, supplies can be delivered by boat and so on, but that is clearly not the experience of people here who talk to us. I do not mean that those people are inventing or imagining that, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the road needs to be reopened. Whatever the decision about the ceasefire this month, I cannot believe that it is beyond the competence of the Government and the LTTE to agree that the road can opened and protected, so that people can go to their homes and supplies can reach people who live in the north.

Simon Hughes: He was. I am reassured by what he says; all I know is that there are internationally authenticated concerns that much of the money has not ended up where it should have ended up, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) intervened on me to say. I am not attributing personal blame, but if that is happening, it is no good.
	I have two final points of concern. There are still huge numbers of unlawful killings—it is not me saying that, but Amnesty. Several hundred extra-judicial killings were reported last year, which, as Amnesty makes clear, were carried out by forces of the Government, the Karuna group—a splinter group of the LTTE that is reportedly co-operating with Government forces—the LTTE and other armed opposition groups. We are not talking about one-side-of-the coin activity. The situation is complex, with many involved in taking people out of what they see as a political battle.
	Both sides are also still recruiting child soldiers. Apparently the LTTE recruited 1,500 or so child soldiers a year ago, while more than 100 were reportedly recruited in Government-controlled areas in the east by the Karuna group. A special adviser to the UN reported in November—two months ago—that Sri Lankan Government forces had been actively involved in forcibly recruiting children. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is even more worrying if anyone connected to the Government or Government forces is involved. The world is trying to stop conflict, and in particular it is trying to ensure that it does not start with youngsters being brought in, as they are the most vulnerable people.
	There have been numerous detailed reports about torture in police custody and so on, but my final point on this report is that an international commission of inquiry was announced by the President in September to investigate abductions, disappearances and extra-judicial killings. In the end, however, it was changed to being a national investigation with an international observer group. There are real concerns about the independence of the information gathering and assessment involved.
	I guess that that is why, at the end of the year, some pretty robust statements were made by independent bodies. The programme director of Amnesty International for the Asia Pacific region said this month:
	"The withdrawal of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, in addition to the downgrading of the National Human Rights Commission by the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions which has brought its credibility into question, leaves a vacuum in independent investigation and monitoring of human rights abuses."
	Norway, the United States, Japan and the European Union have also made clear their unhappiness at what has happened in connection with the ending of the ceasefire. I am grateful that our Government have made their position clear in that regard. I am also grateful that Norway, which has played an absolutely central role throughout by seeking to be a peacekeeper, to arbitrate and to initiate, is still willing to do that. I had the privilege of meeting the man who had led that exercise when he was passing through London just before Christmas, and I want to thank him and his team, and the Norwegian Government, for continuing to offer their assistance in very difficult circumstances.
	I want to reflect what the Sri Lankan Government have told me, to ensure so that I am not in any way misrepresenting it. They have a view that the position of the LTTE, and the more extreme Tamil position, is to create a mono-ethnic, mono-political separate state. Some hold that view, but in my opinion it can never be possible in this world to have mono-ethnic mono-political states. Look at the history of the Balkans; look at anywhere else. No state is going to be like that; it is not a sustainable option.
	Many people hold a different view, which is that self-governance within a federal, or confederal, solution is a viable option. Countries flourish, blossom and grow under such systems. India and Pakistan are examples of such states, as are—nearer to home—many of the European Union countries. One has to try to reflect the different aspirations and views involved. The negotiations looked as though they were going down that road and becoming much more realistic. It is unlikely that the support of the Sri Lankan Government would be won by an argument for the secession of part of the country to become a separate Tamil nation state. That is not a credible option under the present constitutional settlement. It must be likely, however, that people could be persuaded by the argument for a new constitution that could confer autonomy for the Tamil people. Yes, there would have to be a referendum, and independent political decisions would have to be taken, but that must all be possible. Within such a self-governing part of Sri Lanka, there would of course have to be freedom for other people to have their human rights acknowledged, whatever their faith, background or interests.
	The Sri Lankan Government responded to the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees by saying that they were awaiting the proposals of the all-party representatives' committee that they set up a year ago. They are doing that, and I welcome it. They are due to report next week. That might be a branch that is worth clinging on to, in order to start climbing back on to a more secure part of the tree. I do not know what the report will say, or how credible it will be, but I recognise that it is clearly important. I hope that it will provide a positive and constructive way forward.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend will pardon me for not giving way; I have an enormous amount of ground to cover.
	Having chosen to end the ceasefire arrangement, the Sri Lankan Government have a clear responsibility to live up to their commitment to address the grievances of the Tamil people. In July 2006, the Government of Sri Lanka gave an all-party representative committee the job of drawing up a framework for settlement. The committee made a promising start in its interim report more than a year ago by advocating that the province should be the unit of devolution and that a second chamber would help ensure power sharing for the minorities at the centre.
	We know from our own experience that the process of devolution is not easy, and it continues to be difficult, but the whole process regarding the committee's business has not been easy. The committee has been bedevilled by those who oppose a peace process and have attempted to derail its work, and it has been hindered by a lack of consensus between the main parties. The Tamil National Alliance was not invited to participate—a big mistake, in my view. The committee is due to present its final recommendations in a little over a week. We think it important that those recommendations go beyond the current constitutional provisions to protect minority rights. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) for drawing the House's attention to the fact that all minorities have to be protected and represented. We have called on the President urgently to take a bold and courageous lead from this foundation to set out a framework for a just solution within a united Sri Lanka that satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. The international community will be watching carefully, and we do not want to see another false dawn.
	I do not believe that those in the LTTE who advocate the use of murder and terrorism represent the hopes and aspirations of the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka and around the world. The LTTE must renounce terrorism and demonstrate a real commitment to democratic principles if it is to be regarded internationally as a legitimate political movement. There needs to be a full debate among the Tamils, free of intimidation and polarisation, on what an acceptable political settlement might look like for the Tamil people. The message that we have for the Government of Sri Lanka—that there can be no military solution to this appalling conflict—applies equally to the LTTE. Some Tamils argue that the military pursuit of self-determination is generated by a sense of despair that their grievances will never be addressed in a united Sri Lanka. It is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka allay those fears and give them hope. For Sri Lanka to find a way forward, we need to see signs of genuine good will from the Government to any proposals for devolution that might emerge and a readiness on the part of disillusioned Tamils to contemplate alternatives to self-determination. Without generating trust and confidence, that will not happen.
	The withdrawal of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission can only add to deep concern about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. As we have heard, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited Sri Lanka recently. She said that Sri Lanka had many of the elements needed for a strong national protection scheme. She was, however, alarmed at the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity for those abusing human rights. I have not heard the word "impunity" tonight, but it is a very important one. That sense of impunity on the part of gangsters, warlords and people who call themselves freedom fighters to murder, torture and kidnap, is something that no civilised country, or the international community, can put up with. She criticised the absence of credible systems of public accountability for the vast majority of these deplorable incidents and the general lack of confidence in the ability of existing Government institutions to safeguard against the most serious human rights abuses. Surely that must be the first duty of any Government in any sovereign state in the world.
	The high commissioner stated that the current human rights protection gap was not solely a question of capacity. She stressed the need for independent gathering of information on credible allegations regarding human rights, not just in areas controlled by the Government but including areas controlled by the LTTE. She underlined her deep concern at LTTE violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including the recruitment of children, forced recruitment and abduction of adults, and political killings. We definitely support the calls for a much more effective UN human rights monitoring presence on the island, and I was glad to hear hon. Friends and hon. Members advocate that policy, because it is very important.
	The human rights crisis in Sri Lanka is not a figment of the international community's imagination, as some who vilify human rights defenders in Sri Lanka would have us believe. The crisis is real. The LTTE, the Karuna faction—the Tamileela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal—and the Government all share responsibility. There is an urgent need to address the culture of impunity that persists. The case for an expanded presence and mandate in Sri Lanka for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can only be stronger following the departure of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey spoke of the understandable concerns of the Tamil community about the plight of Tamils in north Sri Lanka. Their inability to reach relatives on the north of the island, or even to communicate with them, should trouble us greatly. I can assure the House that we attach great importance to listening to all perspectives across the Sri Lankan diaspora about that and many other matters. Foreign Office officials meet diaspora groups on a regular basis. Tamil community groups have suggested, following the recent arrests of LTTE supporters in the UK, that they no longer feel free to express their opinion on the conflict and the plight of the Tamils. I will say this: the community is free to assemble in a legal, orderly manner to express its concerns; it did just that last July in Trafalgar square, and it has done so in recent days.
	An open debate is needed within the Tamil community on what a just political solution might look like as an alternative to the target of breaking the sovereign state of Sri Lanka into two parts. I say that because we have witnessed terrible events in Pakistan during the past two weeks. Many of us recall not just the horrors of the separation of India and Pakistan that occurred in 1947-48, and the millions who died, but the terrible events when what was East Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh, broke away from Pakistan. Those can be terrible moments, and bring terrible conflicts. Millions can die, and we do not want to see that in Sri Lanka. There must be another way, and we have heard many suggestions in the debate of what might happen. The diaspora must be able to play a more constructive part in bringing peace to Sri Lanka.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman particularly wants to focus on British assistance for a peace process in Sri Lanka, and he has kindly acknowledged the recent efforts of the Government in this regard. I visited Sri Lanka twice last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen also visited a year or so ago, and we sought to offer the benefit of our Northern Ireland experience.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked what happens to the money that was placed in the hands of the Government in the aftermath of the tsunami. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development has visited the country, and he has maintained great vigilance in monitoring British aid to Sri Lanka for post-tsunami reconstruction and other humanitarian works. I made a point on my last visit of making sure that I got out to the east of the island to see some of that reconstruction work, bedevilled as it is by the ongoing conflict—there is no question about that.
	A lasting peace can come only if the underlying causes of conflict are addressed, and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made that point time and time again. Peace will not happen until the parties to the conflict understand that nothing can be gained from continuing violence. Some in Sri Lanka did not welcome our involvement. We regret the fact that they did not understand, or chose not to, that our aim has been simply to do what we can to help the Sri Lankans find a way forward. We have no ulterior motives. We remain ready to help with the search for peace in Sri Lanka.
	What can we do specifically at this difficult time? I have been asked that question a number of times tonight. We have to continue to work with international partners to make it clear that there cannot be a military solution, and to work for a cessation of hostilities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, a new ceasefire must be constructed as quickly as possible if we are to make progress.
	We must press the Government of Sri Lanka to address the grievances of Tamils through a credible and sustainable political solution. We must urge the LTTE to change. We continue to make available the benefit of our Northern Ireland experience, press all concerned to safeguard human rights and humanitarian space and combat any notions of impunity for those guilty of abuses and murder.
	We must encourage the diaspora to play a bigger role in the search for peace. We must try to learn the lessons of five years of the ceasefire agreement. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and others said that it was not perfect but a basis for peace and moving forward. We should learn lessons from that.
	We must work quietly and patiently behind the scenes with all the communities and with civil society in Sri Lanka to sow the seeds of a future resolution of the conflict. Members of organisations—NGOs and others—must be confident that they will not be kidnapped or murdered as they go about their work. That is vital.
	The end of the ceasefire agreement is confirmation that we have entered a dangerous new phase in Sri Lanka. The Government and the LTTE both appear to believe that they can achieve their aims through military means. We believe that they are wrong.